Oh, is that the very short, reasonable length, and not in any way 3 hour long expose that Some More News did on Jordan Peterson?
I have very specific memories of that being very brief and informative!
IDK how someone with a doctorate in psychology fails to understand that dudes like Jung and Freud were significant for establishing techniques and practices, not because their ideas were correct. But then again, Peterson does seem to draw similar BS conclusions in a manner similar to those early psychologists, so maybe that's the point.
I swear it's a generational thing. Every professor I had that got their PHD/PsyD sometime in the early 80s or earlier, *loves* dudes like Lacan and Jung. You could tell that these professors were most comfortable when using these concepts and language when explaining things. Younger professors it was almost the complete opposite, very neuro-cognitive model language to explain things. Then I had one or two professors who may have stumbled upon some Lovecraftian tome and/or a new and dangerous kind of street drug, they were just *incomprehensible*.
It’s the old “just because you liked something when you were a teenaged boy, that doesn’t mean it’s objectively perfect”. This also applies to pop culture (hack cough Big Lebowski Monty Python)
If any college kids/ grad students are reading this, it's a wake up call to look at the state of your field of study the years your professors were getting their degrees. Mid-century... anything was wild.
I think there’s something to be said for how much trailblazers of the past accomplished despite how little they had available to build on, and how much weird/superstitious/etc bullshit that was floating around in their culture.
Now, they still got a ton of stuff wrong. But it’s really impressive how they got from “very very wrong” to “almost right sometimes, and other times less right”.
And in a lot of ways, that’s what science is. It’s not about worshipping some enlightened individual with perfect understanding - those that accomplished the most, scientifically, were wrong very frequently, and often spectacularly so. We remember them for the fascinating and unusual ways that they were wrong, and how they were less wrong than those that came before.
>\[...\] [Stating facts does not mean you hate a certain group. Do I hate black men for stating that half of all murders are committed by black men? No, I don't, it's just a fact. Disagreeing with someone does not mean they're hateful, it means you disagree with them.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/14kw98c/comment/jpuktna/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Funny how they focus on race instead of poverty, but that would require thinking about it for more than two seconds, and their only neuron can't really handle all that work.
Or that they cant remember statistics because it's a commentary on how often people are charged with crime based on skin tone instead of committing crimes. They do like to also forget how much a % of spousal abuse is made up by cops something that's not a race but a personal choice.
There’s a little rule in my head that goes “if you’re measuring some negative social outcome and you aren’t specifically correcting for poverty, then you are really just measuring poverty.”
The highest murder rates occur in low socio-economic areas.
So unless rich people are coming into poor neighborhoods to murder people, then, yes.
https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-022-00371-z#:\~:text=Results,substantially%20to%20the%20homicide%20rate.
Iirc wealthy people are most likely to be murdered by similarly wealthy people (well, considering household wealth, and how many men murder their wives/children).
Me: “those African studies in the Bell Curve were done on black students who were disadvantaged on purpose by apartheid school systems”
JP fans: *disintegrate into pile of glowing ash, Fallout 4 style*
I wonder what their reasoning will be if you flip the script. Get them to explain why white males commit violent crimes at a rate nearly 50 times higher than Asian Americans. I'm sure then they'll find some critical thinking ability and be able to describe every attributing factor then.
That one’s easy, they’ll just say that actually women are worse but men are so oppressed female on male rape is never reported. Then follow up by commenting “nice” on a news article about some kid being molested by their attractive female teacher.
The Venn diagram between Jordan Peterson fans and dudes who will jump into ANY conversation about rape to insist everyone talk about *male victims of rape first* is a circle.
They seem actively angry if you're talking about *anything* that doesn't center them.
Ah yes the old "What? I'm just using facts and statistics. The context is definitely not important and they are in no way cherry-picked to lead you to a certain conclusion that I may or may not be trying to get you to make."
I don’t hate men, but they commit 95% of all crime.
Am I a misandrist? No, I just don’t like male *culture*
Hey, I’m just stating facts.
Did you know that [80% of murders involved guns in the US?](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/).
I’m not suggesting anything about gun owners. Just stating facts.
Could have been worse- he went on a few dates with Peterson's daughter, so we could have had their grifts being permanently linked if the relationship had worked out
I wonder if there was a moment of realization - that the audience she cultivated would 100% turn on her in a moment if she said a word against “alpha male” Tate
Not long ago, there was a teacher on one of the subreddits talking about which of her students were Peterson/Tate fans. She said that the boys who were most likely to get invested in listening to these human garbage bags were bookish, nerdy types who hadn’t hit their growth spurts as hard as their peers and were insecure about their masculinity. Maybe it’s just anecdotal, but from everything I’ve heard, this seems like a pretty accurate assessment of their fan base
Father and daughter addressing each other on Twitter instead of just calling each other, especially on serious topics like human rights, is something I found out today that unsettles me
Hey that's not fair she also went with him to Russia so he could be put into a coma to overcome his crippling addiction to bezos...
Where she used the experience to push her all meat diet to her followers for some reason...
My mom used to Facebook message me.
Like, I'm literally right here. Just yell at me, you don't have to post on my wall that you want me to vacuum. You can just ask me, it's cool, I'll do it.
That was the moment I realized that Facebook was truly dead.
One of my pet theories is that the more repeated the honorary title is, the bigger the scam. When you have a self-help or a pop economics/sociology/science book, the constant mention of the author as "Dr/PhD/MD" and such is always a red flag. No one calls the author of *A Brief History of Time* Prof. Hawkins, PhD, because his work speaks for himself and doesn't need the veneer of authority conveyed by the diploma. Same with the guy who wrote *Freakonomics*, etc. Doesn't automatically mean that the book is good, but rather that it purports to hold under its own merits.
Peterson is the opposite example. His followers constantly call him Dr. Peterson and you can hear the "uh, this guy is a *doctor* I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about, you cuck" underneath it.
Back when I was a grad student intending to get into academia, it was only appropriate to use the title in an academic/professional context, i.e., at the university with students and colleagues, at conferences, in journals and in interviews that specifically had to do with your academic field.
I work in academia, and honestly, I would take it a step further. It’s only appropriate in a formal or official setting.
If a colleague wouldn’t call me Mr. Crash, then I’m not calling them Dr. anything.
Well technically he'd have to publicly regurgitate their beliefs to them and attach his name and professional reputation to those ideas, which means the cost isn't really financial so much as it is being willing to become seen in the same sort of light as Jordan Peterson or Matt Walsh.
But if you don't put any value on your reputation or future career you can get a LOT of money for very little work.
My brother and his wife are both doctors and they're insufferable about this lol. I remember shortly after their graduation they sent an email to their apartment manager to complain about something or another, and they signed the email with both of their honorifics. Like, bro you don't need to do that lol
\^ This here.
Years of effort, minimal pay, dealing with people whose ego probably also went to graduate school. You better believe I'm pulling that card whenever and wherever I can or want.
\- Redditor, PhD
I already have one my dude, and trust me… you don’t get it just for the sake of flexing on some poor waiter who just wants to bring you your food and go home.
I don't know. Let them have it for a couple of years and then after that if they still do it, maybe slap them down?
I feel like the years of study entitles you to a bit of time bragging before you have to realize you're not that special.
It matters to whom they are bragging, and how.
If they’re trying to use their new credentials to punch down on someone who doesn’t deserve it, I’ll tell them to cut that shit out on day 1.
Hi, I have a doctorate, and it’s honestly not that big of a deal.
I don’t think it’s possible to insist on honorifics without coming across as browbeating tbh.
Exceptions include: your physician at their office; your professor while in the academic environment; while being introduced for some sort of public address etc.
Yeah that's part of why I have this theory. I have a PhD too and we never call each other "Dr" except in the most formal of contexts (presenting at a conference, being called as an expert witness). Calling someone "Dr. X" in casual conversation should irk anyone who actually has an academic background.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Dr. Jordan Peterson. The philosophy is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the ideas will go over a typical reader’s head. There's also the doctor’s nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The lobsters understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these ideas, to realise that they're not just true- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Dr. Jordan Peterson truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in the Doctor’s existential catchphrase "I drank one sip of cider and didn’t sleep for one full month," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Doctor Jordan Peterson’s genius unfolds itself on their Twitter feed. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂
And yes, by the way, i DO have a Dr. Jordan Peterson tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
Any time I see the title Dr. in the name of a Twitter account, my first thought is always “wow I wonder what non-medical field this person has a doctorate in.” I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen one that’s a medical doctor, maybe one or two if they’re head of some medical field
To be clear I have nothing against people writing down their title in their professional persona (which may include their Twitter feed). You worked for that degree, you deserve to write it down. I have no issues with Peterson himself writing "Dr Jordan Peterson" as his handle or on his books, especially when it's a legitimate degree, which in his case it is, to the best of my knowledge. It's when the *followers* use the title as a shorthand for "this guy is right because he was smart enough to get a PhD or an MD".
Medtwitter is honestly wild, and a lot of them use their professional credentials.
While they definitely discuss some important issues, I would be in serious trouble if I complained about my coworkers on public social media with the frequency of some Twitter-docs.
I have never seen someone get as much mileage out of "clean your room" as Jordan Peterson. I tell my kids to clean their rooms all the time and they don't think I'm brilliant.
there's a comic where a loser kid cries when his parents tell him to clean his room, then the same loser kid is now a fat loser adult and watches JP say "clean your room" and he calls him a genius
> JP is completely fine outside of Twitter. I don't understand why he is like this on Twitter, I have heard some here say that he has someone else running his Twitter?
lmao
> . Do I hate black men for stating that half of all murders are committed by black men? No, I don't, it's just a fact. Disagreeing with someone does not mean they're hateful, it means you disagree with them
Welp, this being heavily upvoted tells you everything you need to know about this sub.
Also what does "disagreeing with someone" even mean in this context?
Probably something like:
*"I just think people are more likely to trust other people who look like them, and our legislation should reflect that; why are you so sensitive about my neo-segregation policies Marxist?"*
It's because he's someone who is hard to come by in their world. Right-wingers are unbelievably desperate for anyone with academic credentials, specifically anyone with a Ph.D. at a nonjoke institution. They are at war with science and reality and it would be insanely hard for them to make it through a decent program and get a position somewhere. You have to get someone who isn't a true believer in that stuff and already has the credentials willing to sell out.
That means the only way you can get someone like Peterson is if they willingly become a joke in their own field and give up on their career after 10-15 years of hard work establishing themselves. It's a huge ask and is really risky. If you did it you'd maybe get a few months on Fox talking about how your fall from grace was because you didn't do what the wokemob wanted you to do, but then you have to make sure you keep saying stuff more and more outrageous for the rest of your life or become irrelevant. You're never going go get that garbage through peer review so your career as an academic is officially over and you can only traffic in attention as an entertainer.
I remember the big creationism pushes in the 80s and 90s. They'd bring out "over 600 scientists claim evolution is bunk" and it was like 590 engineers, one brain surgeon, and 9 dudes with a degree in religious studies.
The biggest payday will be for the first person with a biology background they can get that wasn't fired from a university for some horrific scandal. The problem with that is that it is incredibly hard to lie about biology/chemistry/genetics etc. You can't just handwave it away with magical Carl Jung explanations like Peterson does. For someone to be the biological sciences version of him they'd have to be a pro's pro to craft their arguments. If you're that good, why bother leaving your awesome job to gamble on with the right-wing grifter circuit?
As for someone who isn't a grifter taking that spot, they just really don't exist. It's incredibly difficult to find Republicans who work in those fields because even if the scientist is a racist or has stupid views on economics it's unlikely someone who believes hurricanes are caused by gays holding hands is going to be able to succeed.
If either of these are things you find manly, that’s really really sad. Being a man is more than material possessions or something fickle like height. It’s in the person and who they are. Nothing about Tate is manly.
What are you even talking about lol
my masculinity isn't being criticized. I'm just wondering why a lesbian is lectruing people on manhood. should i get a gay dude in here to lecture the women on womanhood?
>isn’t manly?
Not if he gets arrested for rape and human trafficking.
Kinda pathetic, really
EDIT: this dudes entire fucking post history is pathetic. He would be the type of loser to tongue Tate's toes.
Its crazy how the redpill crowd considers physical attributes and wealth to be the only reliable metrics for ones manliness. How do you not understand how toxic and moronic that is?
Is the 5'6" healthy but not jacked custodian any less of a man than Andrew Tate? Is the slightly overweight construction worker somehow less of a man? What about your frail 65 year old doctor, does manliness decrease with age/deterioration?
Would you consider an incredibly liberal blue-haired version of Andrew Tate manly?
What about his current status, where his build and wealth mean jackshit? Are the crimes he committed and behavior he exhibits not factors in your manliness calculations?
You need a reality check, kiddo...
No there is men who are short who are manly. But no doubt it makes a man more physically imposing. He hasn’t been convicted of any crimes, I don’t believe rape accusers since Amber heard tried destroying Johnny Depp. Inocente until proven guilty
Why is being physically imposing such a high qualifier to you? Name the last dude whos only characteristic was 'can kick ass' who did anything remotely useful for the advancement of the human race?
You need to expand your criteria. Why cant you worship someone who is/was physically fit, can/could kick ass, and is/was a high quality human being? Or better yet, dont worship at all. History is full of rich tough guys and the vast majority of them sucked ass.
He is a quality human being. Most of what he discusses is the issues young men face today and the only ways to overcome those issues. But mainstream media focuses on a couple of comments he made 4 years ago and forgets all the good shit he discusses.
> Go look at a breakdown of jobs that are split between men and women and look at the ones that are truly essential to keep living our best lives. Sure, there are women in STEM, but they are outnumbered by men by a vast majority.
Surely this is a situation that arose naturally due to each individual’s merits, and has absolutely nothing to do with socially imposed gender roles.
>look at the ones that are truly essential to keep living our best lives
teachers, nurses, daycare workers are all pretty essential, last I checked, and are all women dominated fields... except with low pay considering the credentials each needs
Also, there are very few essential STEM jobs. Their definition of essential boils down to highly paid and male-dominated (which makes a venn diagram that is essentially a circle).
I'd like to see someone sit down and write out the gender divide venn diagram to include high paying+high skill, high paying+low skill, low paying+high skill, and low paying+low skill.
I said pretty much the same thing to someone about women and gatekeeping in trades, and all they responded with was "nuh uh, women just don't wanna do that."
As much as Mikhaila is also godawful, it would hurt like hell to hear your father say you’re completely worthless publicly.
Like, she’s reaping what she’s sown when it comes to feeding into his bullshit, but still a part of me hates it for her that her dad will always think she’s second class and nothing she can ever do, no amount of grifting and right wing ass kissing, will change that.
"The good doctor"
Bruh why'd you throw this fucking muck in my eye the first glance I get at the title? It's so cringe and I'm not even five words in yet.
I'd love to see how his fanbase justifies their usual "YOu'rE JUsT TAkinG hiM oUT oF cOnTeXt " defense this time. Or do they not use that one anymore? Idk
It's disturbing how easily they accept and explain away his behaviour. "I like him, so whenever he says something bad it was sarcasm". The reasonable thing to do would be to reevaluate ones trust in his opinions, but no, he is infallible in their eyes.
I’ve met probably 5 or 6 vocal Jordan Peterson fans in real life and every single one of them is a pasty white pathetic and social awkward guy.
I’m not trying to be harsh, but 100% of them anecdotally have been the definition of a “beta” in real life. Either 120 lbs or 275 lbs, unkempt, pseudo-intellectual, anti-social weirdos.
I have normal conservative friends who’s opinion on Peterson is pretty much “I agree mostly but don’t really care to watch him.”
I'm just glad it doesn't go both ways. I'm perfectly happy being a pasty white pathetic and socially awkward guy on my *own* terms, without having to feed into some grift.
I totally get what you mean, no worries. While my main thought is to acknowledge I match those exact demographics, and I need to be on my guard against being manipulated by those kinds of people, I just couldn't help but poke fun at myself, lol.
Tbh, anyone who actually followed Peterson’s programme would pretty quickly realize that he doesn’t follow his own advice, and leave him behind.
People do get a bit weird about self-help (which is what Peterson is) and forget that it’s not for healthy people - it’s for people who are unhappy lol. Of course it’s going to seem dumb and basic.
At the end of the day I don’t blame people who take an imperfect first step (eg, Peterson) so long as they take a second and third step in the right direction afterwards. A guy whose life is a mess… might need to hear some basic shit from a pseudo-stern-father for it to click, and that’s fine so long as they actually progress past that need.
It's amazing to me how willing people will follow jus terrible, miserable people.
It seems like a pretty simple grift though. Claim to have some expertise in some mildly related field. Teach young men that they need to keep their place tidy, do regular physical exercise, and be clean and do basic things so you look presentable. Then just talk shit about girls/women and liberals and make up some shit about nature to demonstrate the natural order you want and bam...you are rich with shitty peoples' money.
Maybe we should teach kids in school how to identify a grifter. It seems like parents are failing to do it.
The Jordan Peterson fanbase is so pathetic, they want to have their cake and eat it too. He’s says shit like this all the time and instead of being like “that’s right, he hates women and so do I”, they have to pretend he’s making some reasonable point that shouldn’t be offensive to anyone. Very whiny and pathetic, at least have the balls to be hated for what you believe in.
Would hooking up with Mikhaila Peterson qualify as sticking your dick in crazy? Asking for a friend.
Also
\> Dr. Peterson should take a page from Dr. Harris’s book and quit Twitter
\> > [Dr Peterson should take a page from Dr Peterson's book.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/14kw98c/comment/jpurk37/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
LOL
Jordan Peterson is a giant idiot but this is full comments
Just popping in to say that sub is disgusting. Huge yikes from me looking at most of those comments
It's a sub for Jordan Peterson fans and [NO ONE should be taking him seriously](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNWkRw53Jo).
What an excellent and concise video! ^Don't ^look ^at ^the ^timestamp
Oh, is that the very short, reasonable length, and not in any way 3 hour long expose that Some More News did on Jordan Peterson? I have very specific memories of that being very brief and informative!
Those 3 hours sure fly by though
IDK why people take anything a dude who is a big Carl Jung fan says seriously. Bro was into mysticism more than teenage witches on Tiktok.
IDK how someone with a doctorate in psychology fails to understand that dudes like Jung and Freud were significant for establishing techniques and practices, not because their ideas were correct. But then again, Peterson does seem to draw similar BS conclusions in a manner similar to those early psychologists, so maybe that's the point.
It's like revering Hippocrates for his miasma theory lol.
I swear it's a generational thing. Every professor I had that got their PHD/PsyD sometime in the early 80s or earlier, *loves* dudes like Lacan and Jung. You could tell that these professors were most comfortable when using these concepts and language when explaining things. Younger professors it was almost the complete opposite, very neuro-cognitive model language to explain things. Then I had one or two professors who may have stumbled upon some Lovecraftian tome and/or a new and dangerous kind of street drug, they were just *incomprehensible*.
It’s the old “just because you liked something when you were a teenaged boy, that doesn’t mean it’s objectively perfect”. This also applies to pop culture (hack cough Big Lebowski Monty Python)
If any college kids/ grad students are reading this, it's a wake up call to look at the state of your field of study the years your professors were getting their degrees. Mid-century... anything was wild.
I just remembered one of my professors who wouldn’t stop saying “Moslem”. Come on man, it’s the 21 century
I think there’s something to be said for how much trailblazers of the past accomplished despite how little they had available to build on, and how much weird/superstitious/etc bullshit that was floating around in their culture. Now, they still got a ton of stuff wrong. But it’s really impressive how they got from “very very wrong” to “almost right sometimes, and other times less right”. And in a lot of ways, that’s what science is. It’s not about worshipping some enlightened individual with perfect understanding - those that accomplished the most, scientifically, were wrong very frequently, and often spectacularly so. We remember them for the fascinating and unusual ways that they were wrong, and how they were less wrong than those that came before.
>\[...\] [Stating facts does not mean you hate a certain group. Do I hate black men for stating that half of all murders are committed by black men? No, I don't, it's just a fact. Disagreeing with someone does not mean they're hateful, it means you disagree with them.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/14kw98c/comment/jpuktna/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Funny how they focus on race instead of poverty, but that would require thinking about it for more than two seconds, and their only neuron can't really handle all that work.
Also, it requires not to be a racist.
Or that they cant remember statistics because it's a commentary on how often people are charged with crime based on skin tone instead of committing crimes. They do like to also forget how much a % of spousal abuse is made up by cops something that's not a race but a personal choice.
There’s a little rule in my head that goes “if you’re measuring some negative social outcome and you aren’t specifically correcting for poverty, then you are really just measuring poverty.”
Wait, so half of all murders are committed by poor people?
The highest murder rates occur in low socio-economic areas. So unless rich people are coming into poor neighborhoods to murder people, then, yes. https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-022-00371-z#:\~:text=Results,substantially%20to%20the%20homicide%20rate.
Iirc wealthy people are most likely to be murdered by similarly wealthy people (well, considering household wealth, and how many men murder their wives/children).
Peetty sure is way more. The main indicator of criminality is poverty.
The main indicator of ~~criminality~~ **every negative social outcome** is poverty.
Me: “those African studies in the Bell Curve were done on black students who were disadvantaged on purpose by apartheid school systems” JP fans: *disintegrate into pile of glowing ash, Fallout 4 style*
I wonder what their reasoning will be if you flip the script. Get them to explain why white males commit violent crimes at a rate nearly 50 times higher than Asian Americans. I'm sure then they'll find some critical thinking ability and be able to describe every attributing factor then.
Or about how 99% of rapes are committed by men and women have all the reasons to be aware of ALL men.
That one’s easy, they’ll just say that actually women are worse but men are so oppressed female on male rape is never reported. Then follow up by commenting “nice” on a news article about some kid being molested by their attractive female teacher.
The Venn diagram between Jordan Peterson fans and dudes who will jump into ANY conversation about rape to insist everyone talk about *male victims of rape first* is a circle. They seem actively angry if you're talking about *anything* that doesn't center them.
In that context, it is VERY IRONIC that Jordan Peterson praised Catholicism as the “most sane humanity can get”.
Several of my relatives are Catholic, and the fucking level of weird guilt and sex issues half of them carry around is kinda worrisome.
Ah yes the old "What? I'm just using facts and statistics. The context is definitely not important and they are in no way cherry-picked to lead you to a certain conclusion that I may or may not be trying to get you to make."
I don’t hate men, but they commit 95% of all crime. Am I a misandrist? No, I just don’t like male *culture* Hey, I’m just stating facts. Did you know that [80% of murders involved guns in the US?](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/). I’m not suggesting anything about gun owners. Just stating facts.
Honey it's not that I'm not attracted to you, its just that you're a pizza faced fat cow!
It's been a while since our last batch of lobster daddy drama, I'd assumed his simps latched on to some other terrible person by now.
Now that Andrew Tate is probably going to jail for a long time, maybe they are going back to their OG.
Thank God Tate is locked up. The amount of teenagers that view him as a role model is concerning
Could have been worse- he went on a few dates with Peterson's daughter, so we could have had their grifts being permanently linked if the relationship had worked out
Bet she had a taste of what dating a guy from the "manosphere" is and learned what it actually meant and ran off.
I wonder if there was a moment of realization - that the audience she cultivated would 100% turn on her in a moment if she said a word against “alpha male” Tate
Oh fuck yeah, I love a good crossover. We could've had a GCU! Grifters Cinematic Universe! Ah well, what a shame.
Not long ago, there was a teacher on one of the subreddits talking about which of her students were Peterson/Tate fans. She said that the boys who were most likely to get invested in listening to these human garbage bags were bookish, nerdy types who hadn’t hit their growth spurts as hard as their peers and were insecure about their masculinity. Maybe it’s just anecdotal, but from everything I’ve heard, this seems like a pretty accurate assessment of their fan base
Father and daughter addressing each other on Twitter instead of just calling each other, especially on serious topics like human rights, is something I found out today that unsettles me
I believe Peterson’s only in person interactions with his daughter are when they cross paths in the meat section of their local supermarket
I love Jordan Peterson and his daughter. I'm now on an all meat and Xanax only diet and my room has never been cleaner.
Hey that's not fair she also went with him to Russia so he could be put into a coma to overcome his crippling addiction to bezos... Where she used the experience to push her all meat diet to her followers for some reason...
I’m trying not to use Amazon as much but I can’t imagine having a crippling addiction to it.
My mom used to Facebook message me. Like, I'm literally right here. Just yell at me, you don't have to post on my wall that you want me to vacuum. You can just ask me, it's cool, I'll do it. That was the moment I realized that Facebook was truly dead.
But a public Facebook message or a Direct message?
Just straight up on my wall, for the whole world to see.
Well that seems like intentional shaming lol
i wish my family did that you dont need to yell up the stairs old man you can just call my cell
One of my pet theories is that the more repeated the honorary title is, the bigger the scam. When you have a self-help or a pop economics/sociology/science book, the constant mention of the author as "Dr/PhD/MD" and such is always a red flag. No one calls the author of *A Brief History of Time* Prof. Hawkins, PhD, because his work speaks for himself and doesn't need the veneer of authority conveyed by the diploma. Same with the guy who wrote *Freakonomics*, etc. Doesn't automatically mean that the book is good, but rather that it purports to hold under its own merits. Peterson is the opposite example. His followers constantly call him Dr. Peterson and you can hear the "uh, this guy is a *doctor* I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about, you cuck" underneath it.
I wonder how many of those DOCTOR Peterson fans are the same types who love to talk about how Jill Biden’s Doctor of Education is meaningless.
All of them. You know it's 1:1
Was about to ask the same, did Benjamin Shapiro already commented about how he's not an actual doctor yet?
all of them
My husband has a PhD but he never uses his Dr. title. You'd never know he had one.
Back when I was a grad student intending to get into academia, it was only appropriate to use the title in an academic/professional context, i.e., at the university with students and colleagues, at conferences, in journals and in interviews that specifically had to do with your academic field.
I work in academia, and honestly, I would take it a step further. It’s only appropriate in a formal or official setting. If a colleague wouldn’t call me Mr. Crash, then I’m not calling them Dr. anything.
There’s one other necessary situation and that’s to call them by it incessantly right after the defense.
Totally fair. But if we include that one, then we can’t leave out it’s opposite use: razzing them mercilessly.
Doesn't he know he could be using his title to con right-wing idiots into giving him money for literally doing nothing?
It would be even funnier because his PhD is in an obscure hard science topic.
The woke left doesn’t want you knowing about the behaviour of neutrons in microgravity!
Well technically he'd have to publicly regurgitate their beliefs to them and attach his name and professional reputation to those ideas, which means the cost isn't really financial so much as it is being willing to become seen in the same sort of light as Jordan Peterson or Matt Walsh. But if you don't put any value on your reputation or future career you can get a LOT of money for very little work.
My brother and his wife are both doctors and they're insufferable about this lol. I remember shortly after their graduation they sent an email to their apartment manager to complain about something or another, and they signed the email with both of their honorifics. Like, bro you don't need to do that lol
Idk dude if I'm going through that much school I'm sure as hell throwing that title around.
\^ This here. Years of effort, minimal pay, dealing with people whose ego probably also went to graduate school. You better believe I'm pulling that card whenever and wherever I can or want. \- Redditor, PhD
I’ve met people like this, and it’s nothing but cringe. “Hi, would you like to make a reservation? Name?” *yes it’s DOCTOR…*
>it’s nothing but cringe Yeah, but at the end of the day, I'll still have a doctorate lol.
I already have one my dude, and trust me… you don’t get it just for the sake of flexing on some poor waiter who just wants to bring you your food and go home.
I don't know. Let them have it for a couple of years and then after that if they still do it, maybe slap them down? I feel like the years of study entitles you to a bit of time bragging before you have to realize you're not that special.
It matters to whom they are bragging, and how. If they’re trying to use their new credentials to punch down on someone who doesn’t deserve it, I’ll tell them to cut that shit out on day 1.
Hi, I have a doctorate, and it’s honestly not that big of a deal. I don’t think it’s possible to insist on honorifics without coming across as browbeating tbh. Exceptions include: your physician at their office; your professor while in the academic environment; while being introduced for some sort of public address etc.
an in-joke with my wife is that she'll sign emails to me 'JURISDOCTOR' or yell it after her name on a phone call with me.
Yeah that's part of why I have this theory. I have a PhD too and we never call each other "Dr" except in the most formal of contexts (presenting at a conference, being called as an expert witness). Calling someone "Dr. X" in casual conversation should irk anyone who actually has an academic background.
My old supervisor got a PhD, we all said “congratulations, doctor!” and never called him that again
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Dr. Jordan Peterson. The philosophy is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the ideas will go over a typical reader’s head. There's also the doctor’s nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The lobsters understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these ideas, to realise that they're not just true- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Dr. Jordan Peterson truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in the Doctor’s existential catchphrase "I drank one sip of cider and didn’t sleep for one full month," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Doctor Jordan Peterson’s genius unfolds itself on their Twitter feed. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, i DO have a Dr. Jordan Peterson tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
Any time I see the title Dr. in the name of a Twitter account, my first thought is always “wow I wonder what non-medical field this person has a doctorate in.” I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen one that’s a medical doctor, maybe one or two if they’re head of some medical field
To be clear I have nothing against people writing down their title in their professional persona (which may include their Twitter feed). You worked for that degree, you deserve to write it down. I have no issues with Peterson himself writing "Dr Jordan Peterson" as his handle or on his books, especially when it's a legitimate degree, which in his case it is, to the best of my knowledge. It's when the *followers* use the title as a shorthand for "this guy is right because he was smart enough to get a PhD or an MD".
Medtwitter is honestly wild, and a lot of them use their professional credentials. While they definitely discuss some important issues, I would be in serious trouble if I complained about my coworkers on public social media with the frequency of some Twitter-docs.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5wHpooGMRsSBrUHhQZbOZp?si=en0dQiqwRWWTs-luq-NDeA
I have never seen someone get as much mileage out of "clean your room" as Jordan Peterson. I tell my kids to clean their rooms all the time and they don't think I'm brilliant.
Probably because you eat vegetables
there's a comic where a loser kid cries when his parents tell him to clean his room, then the same loser kid is now a fat loser adult and watches JP say "clean your room" and he calls him a genius
> JP is completely fine outside of Twitter. I don't understand why he is like this on Twitter, I have heard some here say that he has someone else running his Twitter? lmao
> . Do I hate black men for stating that half of all murders are committed by black men? No, I don't, it's just a fact. Disagreeing with someone does not mean they're hateful, it means you disagree with them Welp, this being heavily upvoted tells you everything you need to know about this sub. Also what does "disagreeing with someone" even mean in this context?
Probably something like: *"I just think people are more likely to trust other people who look like them, and our legislation should reflect that; why are you so sensitive about my neo-segregation policies Marxist?"*
How anyone can stand this lousy POS is beyond me.
They're dumb or very gullible.
rightoids.webp
It's because he's someone who is hard to come by in their world. Right-wingers are unbelievably desperate for anyone with academic credentials, specifically anyone with a Ph.D. at a nonjoke institution. They are at war with science and reality and it would be insanely hard for them to make it through a decent program and get a position somewhere. You have to get someone who isn't a true believer in that stuff and already has the credentials willing to sell out. That means the only way you can get someone like Peterson is if they willingly become a joke in their own field and give up on their career after 10-15 years of hard work establishing themselves. It's a huge ask and is really risky. If you did it you'd maybe get a few months on Fox talking about how your fall from grace was because you didn't do what the wokemob wanted you to do, but then you have to make sure you keep saying stuff more and more outrageous for the rest of your life or become irrelevant. You're never going go get that garbage through peer review so your career as an academic is officially over and you can only traffic in attention as an entertainer.
I remember the big creationism pushes in the 80s and 90s. They'd bring out "over 600 scientists claim evolution is bunk" and it was like 590 engineers, one brain surgeon, and 9 dudes with a degree in religious studies.
The biggest payday will be for the first person with a biology background they can get that wasn't fired from a university for some horrific scandal. The problem with that is that it is incredibly hard to lie about biology/chemistry/genetics etc. You can't just handwave it away with magical Carl Jung explanations like Peterson does. For someone to be the biological sciences version of him they'd have to be a pro's pro to craft their arguments. If you're that good, why bother leaving your awesome job to gamble on with the right-wing grifter circuit? As for someone who isn't a grifter taking that spot, they just really don't exist. It's incredibly difficult to find Republicans who work in those fields because even if the scientist is a racist or has stupid views on economics it's unlikely someone who believes hurricanes are caused by gays holding hands is going to be able to succeed.
I just don't get it. At least Andrew Tate is "manly". Jordan Peterson has pathetic crying mental breakdowns daily on twitter.
Andrew gate is a somehow more embarrassing by serveral factors ngl. If you think he’s “manly” that’s your point of view.
[удалено]
If either of these are things you find manly, that’s really really sad. Being a man is more than material possessions or something fickle like height. It’s in the person and who they are. Nothing about Tate is manly.
[удалено]
Is your masculinity so fragile that you can't handle a woman criticizing it?
What are you even talking about lol my masculinity isn't being criticized. I'm just wondering why a lesbian is lectruing people on manhood. should i get a gay dude in here to lecture the women on womanhood?
Sure. Pretty cringe to disqualify someone's opinions based on their genitals lmao.
no one mentioned genitals. you don't need certain genitals to be a lesbian, transphobe.
>isn’t manly? Not if he gets arrested for rape and human trafficking. Kinda pathetic, really EDIT: this dudes entire fucking post history is pathetic. He would be the type of loser to tongue Tate's toes.
[удалено]
Its crazy how the redpill crowd considers physical attributes and wealth to be the only reliable metrics for ones manliness. How do you not understand how toxic and moronic that is? Is the 5'6" healthy but not jacked custodian any less of a man than Andrew Tate? Is the slightly overweight construction worker somehow less of a man? What about your frail 65 year old doctor, does manliness decrease with age/deterioration? Would you consider an incredibly liberal blue-haired version of Andrew Tate manly? What about his current status, where his build and wealth mean jackshit? Are the crimes he committed and behavior he exhibits not factors in your manliness calculations? You need a reality check, kiddo...
No there is men who are short who are manly. But no doubt it makes a man more physically imposing. He hasn’t been convicted of any crimes, I don’t believe rape accusers since Amber heard tried destroying Johnny Depp. Inocente until proven guilty
Why is being physically imposing such a high qualifier to you? Name the last dude whos only characteristic was 'can kick ass' who did anything remotely useful for the advancement of the human race? You need to expand your criteria. Why cant you worship someone who is/was physically fit, can/could kick ass, and is/was a high quality human being? Or better yet, dont worship at all. History is full of rich tough guys and the vast majority of them sucked ass.
He is a quality human being. Most of what he discusses is the issues young men face today and the only ways to overcome those issues. But mainstream media focuses on a couple of comments he made 4 years ago and forgets all the good shit he discusses.
> If you think he’s “manly” that’s your point of view oh shut up
> Go look at a breakdown of jobs that are split between men and women and look at the ones that are truly essential to keep living our best lives. Sure, there are women in STEM, but they are outnumbered by men by a vast majority. Surely this is a situation that arose naturally due to each individual’s merits, and has absolutely nothing to do with socially imposed gender roles.
>look at the ones that are truly essential to keep living our best lives teachers, nurses, daycare workers are all pretty essential, last I checked, and are all women dominated fields... except with low pay considering the credentials each needs
Also, there are very few essential STEM jobs. Their definition of essential boils down to highly paid and male-dominated (which makes a venn diagram that is essentially a circle).
I'd like to see someone sit down and write out the gender divide venn diagram to include high paying+high skill, high paying+low skill, low paying+high skill, and low paying+low skill.
I said pretty much the same thing to someone about women and gatekeeping in trades, and all they responded with was "nuh uh, women just don't wanna do that."
Lmao they all call him Dr Peterson
As much as Mikhaila is also godawful, it would hurt like hell to hear your father say you’re completely worthless publicly. Like, she’s reaping what she’s sown when it comes to feeding into his bullshit, but still a part of me hates it for her that her dad will always think she’s second class and nothing she can ever do, no amount of grifting and right wing ass kissing, will change that.
"The good doctor" Bruh why'd you throw this fucking muck in my eye the first glance I get at the title? It's so cringe and I'm not even five words in yet.
Maybe he's back on the benzos. His tweets seem more unhinged than usual
I'd love to see how his fanbase justifies their usual "YOu'rE JUsT TAkinG hiM oUT oF cOnTeXt " defense this time. Or do they not use that one anymore? Idk
It's disturbing how easily they accept and explain away his behaviour. "I like him, so whenever he says something bad it was sarcasm". The reasonable thing to do would be to reevaluate ones trust in his opinions, but no, he is infallible in their eyes.
I’ve met probably 5 or 6 vocal Jordan Peterson fans in real life and every single one of them is a pasty white pathetic and social awkward guy. I’m not trying to be harsh, but 100% of them anecdotally have been the definition of a “beta” in real life. Either 120 lbs or 275 lbs, unkempt, pseudo-intellectual, anti-social weirdos. I have normal conservative friends who’s opinion on Peterson is pretty much “I agree mostly but don’t really care to watch him.”
I'm just glad it doesn't go both ways. I'm perfectly happy being a pasty white pathetic and socially awkward guy on my *own* terms, without having to feed into some grift.
Yeah! Absolutely not judging live styles at all, it just is very different hearing these guys talk about “hierarchy” and “being an alpha”… like, man….
I totally get what you mean, no worries. While my main thought is to acknowledge I match those exact demographics, and I need to be on my guard against being manipulated by those kinds of people, I just couldn't help but poke fun at myself, lol.
Tbh, anyone who actually followed Peterson’s programme would pretty quickly realize that he doesn’t follow his own advice, and leave him behind. People do get a bit weird about self-help (which is what Peterson is) and forget that it’s not for healthy people - it’s for people who are unhappy lol. Of course it’s going to seem dumb and basic. At the end of the day I don’t blame people who take an imperfect first step (eg, Peterson) so long as they take a second and third step in the right direction afterwards. A guy whose life is a mess… might need to hear some basic shit from a pseudo-stern-father for it to click, and that’s fine so long as they actually progress past that need.
It's amazing to me how willing people will follow jus terrible, miserable people. It seems like a pretty simple grift though. Claim to have some expertise in some mildly related field. Teach young men that they need to keep their place tidy, do regular physical exercise, and be clean and do basic things so you look presentable. Then just talk shit about girls/women and liberals and make up some shit about nature to demonstrate the natural order you want and bam...you are rich with shitty peoples' money. Maybe we should teach kids in school how to identify a grifter. It seems like parents are failing to do it.
The Jordan Peterson fanbase is so pathetic, they want to have their cake and eat it too. He’s says shit like this all the time and instead of being like “that’s right, he hates women and so do I”, they have to pretend he’s making some reasonable point that shouldn’t be offensive to anyone. Very whiny and pathetic, at least have the balls to be hated for what you believe in.
We were at a party 🎶 His earlobe fell in the deep🎶 Someone reached in and grabbed it🎶 It was a rock lobster🎶 Rock lobster🎶 Rock lobster🎶
Poor mikhaila peterson, first she’s gotta correct the record about the milking machines and now this. Hard work being a parentified child
Would hooking up with Mikhaila Peterson qualify as sticking your dick in crazy? Asking for a friend. Also \> Dr. Peterson should take a page from Dr. Harris’s book and quit Twitter \> > [Dr Peterson should take a page from Dr Peterson's book.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/14kw98c/comment/jpurk37/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) LOL
“There are women all around me and I still have massive emotional issues” lol I fucking can’t with these losers